Aside from the affected meet hosts, the real losers of this dilemma are the swimmers from the two affected SCM meets who stand to lose their placing in the USMS Top Ten. In short order, R&T will release the 2001 SCM Top Ten and we’ll discover who was denied placement on the list because their worthy performances were conducted in pools they believed were legitimate for sanctioned competition.
I do not yet know if I will be one of those people, but I expect to be. You might remember the story of my 1500m Freestyle that turned into the 1550m Freestyle (or rather the 1498.7m Freestyle that was the 1548.68m Freestyle) at the NWZ meet. My time was 19:04.76, a 50-second improvement from my previous lifetime best. (The 19:55 swim as well as a 20:05 swim both put me into the SCM Top Ten in those years)
Many folks in the discussion forums have sounded off about how important they view the Top-Ten rankings. I’ll simply say that in my case, if I had been told by the meet director before my 1500m Freestyle that the pool was less than 25m long, I probably would not have swam the event. There was no other swimmer in my age group at the NWZ meet. My “competition” was the other 30-34-year-olds nationwide.
The impending ruling by the EC could very likely demand that I and other swimmers at the affected SCM meets make a sacrifice for the betterment of USMS. Honestly, I do not know what greater good is supposed to result from locking out certain swimmers from the Top Ten. I do not even know if this sacrifice is even necessary.
The EC certainly is considering the relationship between USMS and its swimmers in making its judgment. It is inevitable that some swimmers will be affected negatively by whatever “final” decision the EC renders. My contention through all of this has been that (1) deserving swimmers ought to be appropriately recognized for there outstanding achievements, and (2) that if we must do harm to swimmers and strain the USMS-to-swimmer relationship, we affect the least amount of harm upon the least number of swimmers. I’m glad that we are soon to be bringing this matter to a close, but I do think that this decision does harm to more people than necessary, as well as to the wrong people.
If it turns out that the 10th place 30-34 swimmer went slower than 19:04.76, I will be happy to congratulate him publicly and acknowledge that he earned his position. If there is any kind of positive outcome from all of this that I can guarantee, this is it.
Former Member
In shallow pools waves (turbulence) reflects from the bottom of the pool and slows swimmers down. It is generally understood that the deeper the pool the better (as in faster), but at some depth making the pool any deeper will not make any significant difference. That is why I, personally, am not particularly troubled by the difference in depth between the two Hawaii pools as far as speed is concerned. Also, racing starts into a shallow pool is a hazard that people are more aware of (concerned about?) then they were 40 years ago.
If you read a blurb for a meet that says "fast pool" they usually mean "deep." (and not "short" :) )
There is always a conflict in pool design between those that want to make the best competitive pool (usually deeper than 2 meters, at least) and those that want a flexible design that can accomodate swim lessons, water aerobics, rehabilitation, and other things that are best in water that can be stood in.
As said by Fisch:
"I honestly mean no offense to anyone, but this business about
steel tape sag vs fiberglass sag is pretty anal.
"Just lay the tape on the side of the pool edge (or both sides
and divide by two) and that would be plenty close for me.
No sag if the tape is supported by concrete.
Can we all agree that trying to get the measurement accurate to 2 mm (or 1 Angstrom) is anal?
As long as the pools are long enough, there is no issue. Anal references are not only uncalled for, but misplaced as to the recipient(s).
Adolph Hitler had no problem making a pool to satisfy most needs way back in the 1930's. The solution was to make a moveable bottom. This was a multi purpose training pool for military cadets, and I suppose it was used for competition also.
The pool still exists today in Berlin as part of what used to be the Andrews barracks (U S Army). The bottom is moved by a combination of mechaical and hydraulic gizmos that can raise or lower the bottom of one end of the pool from 2 1/2 meters deep to about 1 meter. And, I suppose, anything in between. When I swam in it, it was kept at a lovely 21-22C (73-77F degrees).
I yam what I yam (ach du lieber!)
I did not see the pool at two different depths, but I believe it was still capable of moving when I swam there in 1986. I was intrigued by the joints in the bottom and what they might do during the transition,but did not get a detailed explanation of the operation. It was a spacious 50 meter pool, in a great large enclosure with flag standards all about the walls (no flags anymore), and grandstand seating on one side (maybe both, it has been a long time). Anyone else been to this pool?
Sorry Michael, I did not mean anything personal about it. It is a reference to the Freudian concept that people have remnants of the psychological development stage of that name. Most people have some aspect of it, *too much* is a problem. For example, It is likely I may be, and my wife claims so, when I insist on hospital-cornering my bed every night. Totally unnecessary and a waste of time, but I am compelled, and I wouldn't legislate it. I take no offense if someone calls me anal, it is a statement of fact. The term does have unfortunate implications, to some, in this society, however.
Besides, *I* was the one that brought the 'sag' subject up, so the original reference, and my reference, was to me. At least so I interpreted it.
That is very interesting about the Berlin pool. I wonder how often it breaks down and how expensive it would be make now? Did you see it in operation, or at two different depths? I have seen much smaller platforms that move up and down in deep pools, but they took up wall and deck space. They are designed for people with certain handicaps, I think.
I haven't been to the Berlin pool, but the pool at the University of Kentucky, where I swim, has a moveable floor. It's usually kept at 4 feet, and the Wellness Program has water aerobics classes at this depth. But for a meet, the floor is dropped to 6 feet. In theory, they can raise the floor up to deck level, so that a person in a wheelchair can get into the pool that way, but that's so time-consuming that I think they just use the "sling" (for lack of a better word) to accommodate these people.
Meg Smath
In , our next lesson we will discuss the differences between electrical currents and ocean currents, and which one a wet swimmer should stay away from.
I know this one, has to do with DC wiring.
If you pour half a glass of drinking water into the ocean (ground) and drink the rest AND AT THE SAME TIME piss into the ocean you don't damage anything. You connect to the ground (ocean) with parallel streams.
If you piss first into your glass, THEN pour half in the ocean and drink the rest it gets disgusting. But that's exactly what you are doing if you share the same connection (glass, groundstrap) to ground (ocean) between high current and low current signals.
